- (1.) Heard Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Special Counsel for the High Court, Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned Advocate General of the State of U.P. and Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the contemner. The reference of initiating the proceedings of criminal contempt against Sri Manoj Singh, Managing Director UPSIDC has been made by a Division Bench of this Court comprising Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J. and Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. vide order dated 20.12.2013. In the reference order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the above mentioned Division Bench in writ C - No. 64720 of 2013, (M/s. Pragati Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. and two others). The reference order dated 20.12.2013 is being quoted below. "A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before the High Court, being Writ Petition No. 8173 of 2012, which was connected with Misc. Petition No. 207 of 2012 for getting an enquiry conducted into the wrongs done by the officers/officials of the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (UPSIDC) in the matter of conversion of land-use. The then Hon'ble the Chief Justice, alongwith another Hon'ble Judge, after taking note of the seriousness of the allegations, as also of the fact that the State Government has already ordered for an investigation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), disposed of the said PIL by providing that the investigation shall be brought to its logical conclusion in accordance with law at an early date, preferably within 6 months. This order was passed on 13.12.2012. The petitioner before this Court also made an application which was practically for the same purpose, namely, conversion of land-use and it was his case that the rejection of the application was bad as the constitution of the S.I.T. itself was illegal and arbitrary. This Court in order to ascertain as to what is the report of the S.I.T. as a period of one and a half years had elapsed after passing of the order of the High Court dated 13.12.2012, required the Managing Director of the UPSIDC to file an affidavit disclosing the status of the S.I.T. investigation, as directed by the High Court by the order in the PIL. In response to the order of the High Court, the Managing Director, namely Manoj Singh, filed an affidavit before this Court and in paragraph 5 of his affidavit he referred to the orders of the High Court in the PIL in the matter of illegal conversion of land-use, and then he referred to the order passed in Contempt Petition No. 1809 of 2013, as to the earlier reports submitted by the S.I.T. dated 17.4.2013, being based on the Photostat copies of the documents, no legal sanctity could be attached to them. He stated that the High Court had allowed one month's time to complete the preliminary enquiry, and in case a cognizable case appears to have been made out for lodging an FIR in the matter. Then comes the interesting paragraph 6 of the affidavit/which reads as follows: 6. That, in compliance to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Court in Writ Petitions (PIL) No. 8173 of 2012 and 207 of 2012, as were disposed of vide order dated 13.12.2012, the S.I.T. completed the inquiry and submitted the report on 8.10.2013 itself to the Principal Secretary Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh. It is further submitted that three-members Committee, as was constituted for taking decision on Inquiry Report as was submitted by the S.I.T., did not found any criminality. However, a recommendation has been made for conducting departmental inquiry against the officers of UPSIDC. In view of the inquiry-report as was submitted by the S.I.T., legal opinion has been sought from the Law Department, Government of U.P. and the same is in process. In paragraph 7 of the same affidavit, the Managing Director went on to state that now in the next Board meeting of UPSIDC the matter of the land-use change of the petitioner's land shall be considered according to the Rules and the Regulations of the UPSIDA. This Court was not satisfied with the affidavit filed, and insisted that the S.I.T. report itself may be produced for its examination on 11.12.2013. On 11.12.2013, learned Standing Counsel prayed for further time to produce the report of the S.I.T. The case was adjourned to 16.12.2013. On 16.12.2013, again; the report was not produced and the learned Standing Counsel took a stand that the report was not available in the office of respondent No. 1, namely, Principal Secretary, Small Scale Industries, Secretariat, Lucknow. Similar stand was taken by the Managing Director. Therefore, this Court was constrained to pass the order requiring the Home Secretary, U.P., to ensure production of the S.I.T. report alongwith the recommendations of the Three-member Committee. It is only then that the report of the S.I.T. alongwith the recommendations of the Three-member Committee was produced before this Court on 18.12.2013. From the S.I.T. report, and the letter of three member committee produced before this Court on 18.12.2013, it was found by the Court that the averments, made in paragraph 6 of the affidavit of the Managing Director of the UPSIDC, quoted above, that no criminality has been found in the S.I.T. report were incorrect. The statement of fact made was patently false. The Secretary was required to look into the matter and take appropriate action. Today, when the matter was taken up, again, an affidavit has been filed by the same Managing Director and in order to explain his false statement he has tried to concoct further false stories. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit that today reads as quoted below: "3. That it is humbly submitted that it is necessary to bring to the knowledge of the Hon'ble Court that two S.I.T. investigations were instituted by State Govt. against various alleged irregularities committed in UPSIDC. The 1st S.I.T. was instituted on 22.6.2007 and concluded the investigation. Thereafter the Principal Secretary in his Letter dated 16.9.2013 had clearly observed that no criminality was found by S.I.T. The assertion made in paragraph 6 of the counter was on the basis of the above fact. A true copy of the Letter dated 16.9.13 of the Principal Secretary, Homes is being annexed as Annexure-SCA-2 to this affidavit. 4. That it is further clarified that in compliance of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Court 2nd S.I.T. completed the enquiry and submitted the Report on 8.10.2013. In the said Report dated 8.10.2013 criminality was found against the several officers/employees of the UPSIDC. On the said report the opinion of the Law Department. Govt. of U.P. has been sought for taking further action in the matter and the opinion is awaited. In so far as para 6 of the counter-affidavit with regards to criminality is concerned, it is humbly submitted that it was inadvertently mentioned that no criminality was found under confusion because of Report dated 3.12.2013 of Sri K.K. Yadav, Regional Manager (In-Charge Industrial Area) and in view of the letter dated 16.9.13 of the Principal Secretary, Homes. The oversight of the 2nd S.I.T. Report submitted on 8.10.2013 is highly regretted and had been committed under the good faith that the brief was prepared by the responsible officer of UPSIDC. It appears that the 2nd S.I.T. Report submitted on 8.10.2013 was produced before this Hon'ble Court and the 1st S.I.T. report as mentioned in the letter dated 16.9.13 of the Principal Secretary, Homes was not before this Hon Court on 18.12.13 hence the direction to take action against the deponent, who is holding the post of Managing Director, UPSIDC, was passed by this Hon'ble Court."
(2.) The letter of the Principal Secretary, Home, which is being relied upon by the said Managing Director, is annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed today. This letter apparently refers to the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the S.I.T. (reference para 2 of the said report).
(3.) Further, in paragraph 3 of the said letter of the Principal Secretary, Home, a reference has been made to the Anupurak Report submitted by the S.I.T. dated 2.2.2012, and thereafter a reference has also been made to another Anupurak Report dated 25.5.2011. It is stated in the same report that the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 9.9.2013 had ordered for fresh look into the matter based on original documents because of the earlier report dated 17.4.2013 being based on Photostat copies, as has been admitted by the Managing Director himself in paragraph 5 of his first affidavit. It is, therefore, writ large on the record that the Managing Director was all along aware that the preliminary enquiry reports and the Anupurak Reports submitted by the S.I.T. had not been accepted by the High Court and in Contempt Petition No. 1809 of 2013, a direction was issued for enquiry on the basis of the original documents.;